Executive Summary

Conceptual Framework

Literature Review

Methodology

Critical Issues

Qualitative Findings

Introduction

Digital technology has become critical to living well in contemporary society. As mobile and networked technologies become ubiquitous, enabling individuals, families and communities to maximize the benefits of the internet depends upon fostering fundamental 21st century capacities. These new capacities are central to the economic, political and cultural life of Australians and must be nurtured from early childhood, and through the life span, in households workplaces and communities. They include the necessary opportunities, skills, infrastructures, attitudes and behaviours to enable individuals and communities to identify risks and develop resilience while participating fully and meaningfully in digital life. Crucially, whilst these capacities are often thought about in individual terms (e.g. the capacity to keep oneself safe online), it is important that we begin to focus debate and target interventions around intergenerational and community-based capacities. Leveraging networks of support is vital in ensuring the maximum safety and participation of all users online.

This report summarises the key findings of one component of a larger project entitled Cultivating Digital Capacities being carried out by researchers at the Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University and the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre, in partnership with Google Australia. That initiative, in the first phase, aims to develop a conceptual framework around what we mean by digital capacities, and to develop an index that measures the digital capacities of Australian families. The index will provide a rigorous and holistic measure of digital capacities that combines statistical and qualitative case study data in order to provide snapshot-in-time or longitudinal analyses of the digital capacities of diverse communities at national, regional and/or local levels.

This report focuses in on the key findings of in-depth qualitative household case studies conducted with eight Australian families between November 2015 and February 2016.

The sample comprised a mix of families from diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, including one Indigenous family; a mix of family circumstances, including married, partnered, shared custody and single parent families; and families from urban and regional locations with children aged 12 – 17.

The qualitative interviews were conducted separately with individual family members in the family home. Each semi-structured informal interview lasted on average one and a half hours and included a technology ‘show and tell’, whereby family members showed researchers what digital technologies they had and how they use them.

These case studies allowed the research team to take a holistic and micro level look at how family dynamics impact, shape and even generate digital engagement. The richness of the qualitative data also informed the development of a quantitative survey instrument.

Introducing Digital Capacities

This project defines and measures the digital capacities of Australian families to imagine and mobilise digital media to thrive in their everyday lives. The idea of digital capacities extends on Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999), but differs in its starting point. Drawing on the Circles of Social Life approach (James et al, 2015; Magee, 2016), the Cultivating Digital Capacities project seeks to develop an index that recognizes that human flourishing is not simply embodied in the individual, but relies also on the socially framed capacities that are in constant interaction; that is, the relational agencies and dynamics that are generated by families, communities and social frameworks more generally. Digital capacities may manifest in material or structural ways but they also have an imaginative or symbolic dimension; they are about the ways users perceive the affordances of digital media for enhancing their everyday lives and those of the people around them. Whilst benefits are often tangible and quantifiable, capacities are more abstract and therefore can be more challenging to research. Measuring digital capacities requires approaches that can capture users’ digital skills and literacies and their lived experiences of using technology. Moreover, they must account for the social, cultural, economic, political and place-based contexts that shape their digital engagement, as well as their aspirations.

Acknowledging the ways our everyday lives are mediated by the digital, researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and technology providers have been interested in measuring how people’s engagements with the digital world impact their lives. By now there are a range of commonly accepted measures that allow us to gain insights into the different ways individuals interact with the digital environment, how they acquire the capacities necessary to navigate their way within that world, and potential barriers to participation. These include measures of access, digital literacy, digital inclusion and so on. However, less is known about how to measure the ways in which individuals, along with their communities, utilise social support networks, and their connections with others in the digital world. This is not surprising given the complex array of factors that contribute to those connections at the macro and micro level, and within and beyond the digital world.

Further, many of the measures for digital engagement have focused on the individual as the entity that actualises that engagement, but when we consider the social as the world in which all individuals interact then we are able to shift the emphasis to the importance relationships play in informing how we as families and, indeed, as communities participate in the digital world. As Cordelli writes “relationships can be reasonably regarded as socially-produced, productive resources.”(2015: 110).

Thinking about digital capacities as intrinsically tied to the relationships we produce and engender allows us to discover the types of opportunities afforded by those interactions.

In the qualitative work reported here, along with the quantitative work which is also informing the development of the index, the research team aimed to capture a diverse range of voices and experiences in order to shed some light on the unique ways families have sought to operationalise digital tools and devices in their day-to-day lives. We wanted to find out what motivates their use and how that relates to their family dynamics and social connections. We also wanted to know to what extent safety online was a consideration in the ways in which they interact with the digital world.

This project has focused on gaining insights into the factors that support families to benefit from the opportunities afforded by the digital world while using technology safely. The Cultivating Digital Capacities project in this phase focuses on two key areas – Social Connectedness and Resilience – which our qualitative work identified as crucial to individuals’ and communities’ capacities to leverage the opportunities of online engagement.

The Digital Capacities Index is thus unique as a measure in four respects:

  • Extends existing measures beyond the individual to consider the important role relationships play in the way we all cultivate our digital capacities.

  • Recognizes that rapid changes in technological innovation create a dynamic environment and, within this context, highlights the importance of resilience as a strength that promotes safe, sustainable and positive uses of the internet.

  • Targets relational interactions and dynamics, or social connectedness, as critical to understanding the importance values and attitudes play in cultivating digital capacities.

  • Highlights how digital engagement promotes intergenerational relationships in valuable and meaningful ways.

A focus on these areas will assist researchers, policy makers, practitioners and technology providers to expand our understandings of the social dimensions of digital engagement and highlight how the digital world has become embedded in the myriad ways we live our lives today.

In order to shed some light on the ways Australian families are enacting their digital capacities, we highlight here a case study of one family that illustrates some of the project’s key messages. The 2016 theme for Safer Internet Day “Play your part for a better internet” within the broader theme of encouraging safe and positive uses of the internet and digital technologies asks us to think about safety online as a form of resilience; and to recognise how our social interactions both in the online and offline domains help shape our responses to the digital world. The Jones family provide a window into some of the ways Australian families are playing their part in reflectively engaging in the digital world. The Jones family example demonstrates how families who are able to cultivate their digital capacities are enabled to participate both safely and positively in the digital world.

Case Study: The Jones Family

Gabby (mother) and Asu (father) have two children, Sean (son, age 14) and Maggie (daughter, age 12). Gabby and Asu have recently separated and the family is in the process of negotiating that transition in terms of redefining the family dynamics and care of their children. They have shared custody and the children live part time in both households. Both Gabby, and Asu are professionals and the children attend local public schools. The family operate on middle incomes and have medium sized mortgage on both houses.

Each member of the family has a personal laptop and smart phone, although Maggie does not access the internet on her phone outside of the house. Sean has access to the internet on his phone, but he is on a plan and the data is limited. He sometimes goes over the data limit on his plan – and this is a point of regular negotiation. Both Gabby and Sean also have iPads, which are mostly used for recreational purposes, although Sean sometimes uses his for school when he does not take his laptop. Both the children report not using their laptops all that often. At Asu’s house they mainly watch television series and movies via a digital hard drive to which the content is downloaded. Asu also has a play station that is mainly used by Sean to play first-person shooter games with his cousins.

Although the family have dedicated ‘work stations’, the mobile devices are used in many ‘common’ areas of the house. Family time is valued as something quite separate from engaging with digital devices except when it comes to audiovisual entertainment, which is considered shared family time. The lounge room is the primary location where the family congregate with their individual devices and where they use entertainment platforms such as Netflix and Stan. Maggie has a study where she likes to manage family matters, such as paying bills. She is also a political activist and tends to do this work in that space. Like Gabby, Asu tries to make sure work does not encroach on family time. At Asu’s house, Sean is free to use the internet on his own in his room. Asu describes this as being about developing trust and having a good open dialogue with his children.

All family members can be described as having a good level of digital literacy. Asu and Sean are considered the technological experts in the family.

Gabby: Yeah, [Sean]’s good. He’s like his dad. Like, that was always a frustrating thing, like [Asu] knew how to do everything, he’d never show me and then I find Sean is a bit the same when I get really like frustrated. It’s like Oh mum, just calm down. Stop freaking out.

Both Gabby and Maggie are less sure of their capacities to learn new things:

Gabby: I just like work out a system of how to do it and then I stick to it. But I’m not one of these people that just like, experiments …

Maggie: Usually I don't know what to do with it, because I don’t really go on it that often. So I ask my brother, because he’s like the technology person. And he’ll help me, yeah. Well I think me and mum are kind of the same. We don’t really know that much about the technology.

Gabby and Asu differ in their digital capacities at work. Gabby, who is a nurse, only really uses technology for email and for compliance issues such as Occupational Health and Safety Training. Asu, who is a designer, has digital technology embedded into everything he does at work.

Asu: With work I’m very in touch and up to date with everything. Probably about eighty per cent of my use of technology is mainly work. I use it every day for six, seven hours.

Gabby: [My workplace] always gets you to do these online courses and stuff. Like mandatory courses that I guess covers them. And you’re just like Oh God, how do you log into this and … I forgot it.

The recent separation between Gabby and Asu highlights tensions in their different attitudes towards negotiating with their children around what is acceptable in terms of their digital engagement. These tensions seem to be related to their different understandings of their own digital capacities and slightly different understandings of and approaches to the level of risk involved in their children’s participation in the digital world. Of particular note is Gabby’s concern about how the violent content of the console games that Sean plays influences his subsequent behaviour.

Gabby:… I think the Playstation thing is a really big issue for mums with boys... It was a big issue between me and Asu, because Asu didn’t see it as a problem. But I could see that it changed Sean’s behaviour.

Asu does not mention the violent content at all. Rather, his concern is about the time it wastes when Sean could be engaged in other activities. At this stage Maggie’s digital activities have not raised any concerns for Gabby or Asu, although there is some awareness that they both need to begin to have more discussions with Maggie about her digital use.

Gabby and Asu share similar values in terms of their approaches to their children’s access to connectivity, understanding that the digital world is embedded into their everyday lives, and with this come not just risks but opportunities and aspirations. They monitor the children’s access but do not try to place too many restrictions on their use.

Asu: I just think that these guys with the way technology is going now and how the education system is going … I think in a few years’ time they won’t need a pen and paper really. They will be doing their exams on laptops and all that stuff, which is brilliant. So I have unlimited internet at my place just because of that.

Gabby and Asu approach issues of safety online with their children as part of their responsibility as parents. They spend time talking to their children about how to discern risk and harm online, while also encouraging them to benefit from the opportunities that the digital world has to offer them. The family has experienced a fairly complex problem with Sean in terms of bullying and risk through an incident on social media, whereby someone hacked into his account. The approach the family took was to involve Sean in every step of the process to resolve the situation and to talk about what he saw and the content as openly as possible.

Asu: We had an issue with Sean, Oh a couple of years ago, where someone set up a Facebook account in his name and that was a bit sort of, stressful. I was very proud of Sean actually. Because he’d say to me Dad, can you come and have a look at this. So I came and had a look at that and it was quite disturbing. ‘I want to kill myself’ dah, dah, dah. I said what’s this? He said I don’t know. Someone … A friend of mine told me about it. And I said well, I’m really sorry son, we’ll try and deal with it. He said ‘Yeah, I don’t mind, it doesn’t bother me really.’ So he was really honest, helpful and didn’t stress out at all about it, which was amazing. I took him with me to the police station. So, everything I did, the emails I sent and all that stuff, he was sitting next to me. And the complaints I did, he was sitting next to me, so he was involved in the whole thing

Similarly Gabby discussed weighing up the tension between the risks online and the opportunities:

Gabby: Well, I did try to get Asu to put safety things on for the kids, mainly on the iPads and, phone. But they just don’t work. They just find, they can’t search anything and then they just go onto a different device. They just get frustrated and nag at you all the time. It blocks everything. It blocks way too much.

All members of the family value the opportunities afforded by technology to keep them engaged with their familial networks and their friends. Of particular importance to both Gabby and Asu is maintaining a connection to the family’s ethnic and cultural background. As this background is heavily affected by current geopolitical struggles, both Gabby and Asu are active in raising awareness about the associated humanitarian crisis. Both express concerns about the way issues are portrayed in the media and feel a strong need to help share alternative information and messages via social media. Gabby is particularly vocal on this front, and generates online content around these issues:

Gabby:  … Because the media is so biased now with this whole conflict and most people are buying it. And one of the biggest reasons for that, all those massive big corps … They’re re-writing history … But when you know people and you keep hearing stories about what’s happening to people. Like, I trust what’s happening because we’ve got family there, who are living this.

For the whole family, the digital world offers a way to stay in contact with family and friends and is their primary motivation for engaging online. Coupled with this, though, family members expressed some level of concern about how much time the digital world can take away from face-to-face contact.

Asu : You don’t want to lose that human connection as well, you know. I find that more important than anything else really.

Sean : I kind of like think it’s wrong that … like, kids of the age of 3 are already starting to be able to like use an iPad really well. It’s kind of weird but like I don't know, start like using technology when you’re about 10  probably or 11, probably be the right age to start technology, for like an hour or two a day. Not over that.

Gabby: Well … [the internet is] both good and bad … In an ideal world, there’d be no bad and just good stuff and the kids would still get out and about and play around in the streets and not just be sitting at home on their devices. .... Nothing beats that like, personal contact, you know, hanging out with your friends. 

Maggie: I try to stay off [digital media] at my friends’ places so I can like, talk to my friends in person.

The Jones family have naturalised the role of digital media; they experience it as an inevitable extension of their social world that opens up to a wide range of opportunities. However, digital media also raises challenges that they must deal with on an ongoing basis. These attitudes and dispositions were evident across our sample of Australian families.

Summary of findings

This project has identified the following key findings about the digital capacities of Australian families:

  1. Reflective engagement

AUSTRALIAN FAMILIES ARE ACTIVELY REFLECTING ON THE ROLE THE DIGITAL WORLD PLAYS IN THEIR LIVES AND ARE BEGINNING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DIGITAL MEDIA CAN PLAY A VERY POSITIVE ROLE IN THE LIVES OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

I guess I do sort of imagine that world for (Child 1), where she just has more freedom to discover things, you know. I think … I was the sort of kid who imagined all sorts of possibilities that I couldn’t see …Like I always feel as though I was sort of restricted by the environment and the culture around me, which didn’t necessarily suit me all that well. And I feel as though it’s sort of different for (Child 1), because her reference points are just more broad, more open. And it’s not just a small culture that she’s exposed to at any time. She’s got the possibilities of you know listening to any kind of music. You can find like some little band from New York and listen to their latest performance or something, you know. Or like I can’t remember as a kid you know, it was the local radio station or whatever they were playing was the limits of what you had. But now the kids are listening to rap and hip hop and you know, (Child 1) came home last night with a rap that she and her friend had made up. I think that’s really great.

Single Mum, 39

  • Australian families engage with a diverse range of digital technologies and platforms in their day-to-day lives, and they are actively reflecting on the ways technology supports them to meet challenges and achieve what they want from life. There has been a shift away from the moral panic and doomsday mentalities – ideas about how the digital world will ultimately ruin our lives that were a common trait of the 1990s and early 21st century. Instead, Australian families are developing sophisticated and critical understandings of both the risks and opportunities associated with the digital world. And they are creatively adapting their access and use of digital media to serve a wide range of needs and desires.

  • Australian families go online to participate in social and political activism, to pursue cultural and artistic endeavours, to find ways to be more informed citizens and better parents, and to improve their families’ wellbeing.

  • Australian families think about both the advantages and disadvantages of technology and generally make informed decisions about when to opt in and when to opt out. Children and parents often draw upon the views of family and friendship networks to make these decisions. Participants wanted to improve their relationships through and beyond digital technology.

  • Although the risks have not decreased or gone away, families increasingly recognize that navigating risk is an ordinary part of life in the digital age. Families also acknowledge that participating safely online is about minimizing the potential for harm through promoting digital literacy and intra-familial dialogue rather than simply blocking content or not allowing children to go online.

  1. Social relationships

Australian families have naturalized the role social media plays in sustaining family relationships and broader friendship networks.

If you’re beyond a five kilometre radius of where I live then sure, online would help. But if you’re within five kilometres, I don’t want to see you on the internet, I don’t want to see you online. I want to see you in person. But how can it help? It can just keep people … Keep you informed. It can keep you in touch. Photos I think are great. Videos.  Seeing someone’s place and face, Facetime is revolutionary, I think.
Dad, 45
  • Social media have become a widely accepted part of the ways Australian families connect with other family members and their broader social networks. The overwhelming majority of families value social media as a means to promote family and friendship networks in sustainable and positive ways, demonstrating significant skill in navigating social media and participating safely. By contrast, though, they often faced challenges with other dimensions of online life, such as paying bills, interfacing with community and government institutions, and understanding how to use technology to support children’s learning.
  1. Family dynamics

Family dynamics are shaped by the diverse and innovative ways in which families adopt and adapt digital technology.

Yeah. So quite early on I worked out how to have a shared calendar with someone. I was trying to work out how to make things run smoothly after the separation and have as … minimal contact as possible. I think I was also trying to help him in a way, because I felt as though he was just a little bit removed from (child 1’s) life. And so I thought by creating this mutual calendar, you know, that when I was putting things in that he would know then, when there was an important event coming up. Like, things that he might not have heard about, like, you know, a picnic in the park or assembly, full school assembly or something like that. And then as well, if I’m away I’ll put that in the calendar or he puts his work days in the calendar as well. Because I was having trouble getting a grip on what days he worked and where he was on different days, so he put that in the calendar. And then I extended that actually, just probably a year or two ago, to my parents as well, and they got on board with that.

Mum, 39

  • In the majority of cases, families use digital media to sustain strong and positive intrafamilial relationships. Those families who demonstrate sound digital capacities use digital media to communicate with and support each other, and to celebrate key family milestones. They also routinely engage in discussion about the role of digital media in daily life; debate and discuss how their family’s values relate to digital media; and share digital expertise across generations.

  • Some families struggle to manage the role digital media play in their lives and are concerned that digital media undermine family cohesion. These families tend to be those in which the digital literacies of parents do not match those of their children. Policy and practice efforts need to focus more precisely on these groups.

  1. Intergenerational dynamics

Children, parents and grandparents see value in engaging online.

Well I’d like people to sit down and show me, step by step. But they say ‘Give it here I’ll do it’ for you. ‘Oh you do this, you do that’ and then give it back to me and I still don’t know what they’ve done it. They haven’t actually shown me but they’ve told me. Got to sit there and show me, step by step. Well what matters to me doesn’t matter to a lot of my family, you know. Like, what I’m passionate about. This is what I’ve really wanted to learn about, you know.

Aboriginal Grandma, 65
  • The advent of social media as an important context in which families can maintain connection with each other, their friends and their communities is impacting on the intergenerational take up of digital technologies. Families reported many instances in which family members support one another to experiment with new technologies and platforms and to acquire new skills. However, digital media can also be a source of intergenerational tension.
  • As different generations build their digital capacities, family dynamics are emerging around who the technology experts are in the family. In particular, gender plays a key role in defining who is a technology expert, with men or boys much more likely to take on this role. This raises questions about how those who have less confidence might be supported to enjoy the benefits of online engagement.
  • Recognising that peoples’ personal interests play a significant role in their dispositions towards the digital world is important to help them realise their potential as digital participants. This is relevant at all ages.
  1. Attitudes to technology

Australian families are best able to maximize the benefits of connectivity when they have positive attitudes towards digital media and effective strategies for navigating risk.

It’s no difficult for me if sometime I don’t know something, I try to do for different way and then I do. Yeah, because sometimes I saw my children that they do that, they try with this, with that, and then they find the correct way. Then I do the same. I try to do one way or check another way and then I can find. I say Oh there, it’s Ok. 

Migrant Mother, 50
  • Australian families are best positioned to make the most of digital media when they understand how digital media can support them to live well; when they are aware of, and have strategies for dealing with, the risks but are also able to imagine how they can use digital media to achieve their aspirations. It is vital that policy and practice continue to foster digital literacies – the technical skills and higher order evaluative skills – of grandparents, parents and children. As part of this task, there is clear opportunity to further promote positive attitudes towards the role of digital media in day-to-day life. This is key to cultivating and maximizing families’ digital capacities.
  1. Exposure

The digital capacities of Australian families are profoundly shaped by their LEVELS OF exposure to technology.

Well, I first started off to communicate, because I’m deaf, and I’d just text people. And that was the only way I could communicate, because I couldn’t hear on the phone and I couldn’t hear very much at all.

Aboriginal Grandma, 65
  • Exposure to digital media helps Australian families to develop skills and attitudes to leverage the benefits of connectivity. For the adults in this study, the ways they use technology in their working lives is a strong predictor of the ways they use it in their leisure time. Australians who have accepted that technology is a consistent feature of contemporary life are more able to adapt their use of technology to benefit from the opportunities and to respond to challenges of the online world.
  1. Drivers of digital capacities

Australian families are, overall, active and enthusiastic participants in the digital world, helping to shape that world through their daily practices, attitudes to digital technology, and their aspirations for the digital future. Nevertheless, some Australian families, or members of Australian families, still experience barriers to digital participation.

Our grandchildren are very internet savvy when they search. They do projects on my computer and show me how to you know, take screen photos and …We always used technology, and probably still do, as a substitute for the way we always did things, like reading the newspaper you know, or whatever. Whereas I think the new generation that understands things, understands that it’s data. And as soon as you understand that it’s data then you can see a lot more opportunity because you know, it’s just a matter of how do I use this data. My view is that tthis generation that’s coming through now, will exponentially use technology because they’ll have a far better understanding of its base characteristics, as it becomes more pervasive and kids will just adopt it naturally and be able to do things that we wouldn’t have dreamt of, I’m sure. And I think they probably do already. 

Grandparents, 68 & 69

  • Social, cultural, economic and geographic factors profoundly shape Australian families’ digital capacities. The perennial problem of distance and mobile coverage is a key concern for some Australian families, as is the affordability of connectivity. Households report that media and regulatory frameworks, as well as the kinds of perspectives and conversation that circulate in the mainstream media, impact on the attitudes Australian families have to issues like online safety.

  • Identity factors structure how digital technology is imagined and practiced. In families the digital capacities of different members of a family are often perceived and organised around factors of gender, cultural background, work histories and age. The issues associated with these factors play a key role in family members’ capacity to leverage the potential of technology; family members have differing levels of confidence when it comes to digital technology. Recognising that peoples’ personal interests and identities play a significant role in their dispositions towards the digital world is important in helping to realise their potential as digital participants.

  1. Parenting in the digital age

The majority of parents are thinking actively about both their own technology use and that of their children. They actively work to adapt those uses to fit their broader philosophies about parenting and family life.

I did have a chat to him and say this is not on. I know you’re loving this but there’s other stuff that you have to do. And he found it quite difficult to deal with in the beginning. So I took it away and I said you can’t have it, I can’t have you play with it like that. I don’t want to take it away. I really want you to have some self-control with it, but there has to be limits. And anything over two hours on one day on the weekend I find frustrating, because there’s a lot of stuff that he can be doing 

Dad, 47

  • Parents frequently reflect on how, when and why they and their children use digital media. This reflexive attitude towards digital media is evident, for example, in the fact that Australian families worry that they are spending too much time online, and take active steps to balance time online with time offline. They also recognise that going online is increasingly important to many aspects of social life including education, friendship, play, work and creative expression. Staying attentive to the risks that come with their children’s online engagements is a key characteristic of well-developed parental digital capacities.

  • Parents’ own digital capacities shape the ways they understand the risks and opportunities associated with their children’s online engagements, as well as the strategies they use to support their children to engage safely. Many feel their abilities to navigate digital life are lacking, but they also see family members, including their children, as key resources.

  • Parents are generally optimistic about the future of the digital world and participants reported a range of aspirations for their children connected to the digital future. Seniors are more likely to use the internet in very targeted or instrumental ways, such as staying in touch with younger family members, paying bills, etc.

  1. Time online = family time?

Sometimes digital tools provide opportunities for families to spend more time together, to organise their lives, and to promote connection. Sometimes digital technology acts as a barrier to this connection.

I’m using technology to counter technology. You know, technology is the disease and the cure.

Single Dad, 45
  • Australian families are concerned about maintaining a balance between time spent online versus time together face-to-face. For those who spend a lot of time online in their work environments, more time online at home can become overwhelming, limiting their motivations to engage with social media and other digitally mediated leisure activities. Similarly some young people experiencing overload if they are online a lot while at school. Face-to-face family time, and time spent outdoors is highly valued and families report that sometimes the digital world seems to encroach too much into those activities.
  • Attitudes towards both the opportunities afforded by digital technology and the ability to opt out vary, depending on a family member’s ability to exercise control over how much technology encroaches into the activities they value in their relationships, alongside their individual interests and responsibilities.
  1. Information seeking

Australian families are aware of, and make good use of, the power of information seeking online.

And parenting … You know, there are some sites that had resources for parents with mental illness and how to talk to your kids about mental illness. And again, books as well, you know, giving suggestions for books that were helpful in talking about it with kids. 

Mum, 39

I’ve used the medical Google to see what is involved in a surgical procedure and what the outcomes are and how long treatment is for and things like that. And vacuum bandaging, which is a new thing. I remember looking that up. 

Mum, 50

• Australian families report that they regard online spaces as ones in which people can seek counsel on their own unique life experiences, along with information on how to cope, grow and flourish in the many roles any individual might pilot in life. • Families reported that online information seeking is a part of their day-to-day lives, through activities such as shopping online, checking facts, reading the news, checking the weather and so on.

  1. Alternative access arrangements

Although the model of one device per family member dominates the access debate, some families report that sharing digital devices and tools can generate social capital.

I teach my friends how to use an iPad, because like they don’t have iPads. So they have to borrow school ones. 

Son, 13

  • Through the sharing of devices and tools Australian families are demonstrating innovative ways to work around economic and familial complexities to guarantee continuity of connectivity, sustain relationships and to maintain their agency in s difficult circumstances.

  • Some Australian families report that there are instances where the sharing of devices amongst family members and/or their broader networks may lead to opportunities for strengthening interpersonal and community ties; opportunities that are not necessarily afforded by the individualised model of technology access that generally dominates ideas about ‘digital inclusion’ in Australia. As such, the criteria for defining appropriate access may look radically different from one setting to another. Policy and practice might consider redefining access to better reflect the specific conditions under which some families engage online, and to open up to the possible benefits and opportunities that flow from alternative forms of access.

References

Cordelli, C. (2015). Justice as fairness and relational resources. The Journal of Political Philosophy 23(1), 86 – 110.

James, P. (with Liam Magee, Andy Scerri and Manfred Steger). (2015). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability. London: Routledge.

Magee, L. (2016). Interwoven cities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quantitative Findings

The Digital Capacities Index is a pilot survey instrument developed by researchers at Western Sydney University and Google Australia. The survey was administered by Pure Profile in February 2016.

Introduction

We included a total of 158 items measuring (a) frequency of various online behaviour, (b) levels of agreement with statements about digital capacities, (c) perceived importance of online activities and (d) ease of use of digital technologies.

We further distinguished questions into the following key thematic areas, or what we have termed, following James (2014), ‘critical issues’. These issues are:

  • Competencies (42 indicators).
  • Interests (44 indicators).
  • Resilience (24 indicators).
  • Social Connectedness (48 indicators).

These four issues were distilled from a list of nine issues that also included Engagement, Inclusion, Policy Environment, Infrastructure and Consequences.

Against these four issues, we selected items and scales from existing sources in the literature where possible. In particular we drew from ‘Kids Online’ (Livingstone et al. 2010), Helsper’s (2012) ‘Corresponding fields model’, a study by Humphry (2014) of mobile use among homeless populations, and indicators compiled by the Young and Well CRC (2013). Other indicators were developed by the Digital Capacities Index team.

A large number of candidate scales were distilled down to the current list after two day-long workshops, and testing of the survey.

Demographics

The survey included a total of 2,157 participants. We requested the survey provider provide a panel in terms of age groups, gender and geographic regions. As the panel provider recruited participants online, our pilot sample is expected to be skewed towards Australian citizens and families with comparatively high digital capacities. This caveat is signficant to the interpretation of our results below.

Age

Participant ages ranged from 12 to 91, with a median value of 42.

Figure 1 provides more detailed age demographics:

Figure 1: Age Frequency

These show participants’ ages correspond approximately to Australia’s adult demographic. 89.8% of participants were aged 35-54.

Gender

Participant gender is roughly evenly distributed. The survey included 1,105 (51%) women; 1,048 (49%) men; and 4 (0.19%) identifying as ‘Other’.

Gender demographics are distributed, as shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Gender Frequency

Combined Age and Gender

Combined age and gender demographics are distributed as shown in Figure 3:

Figure 3: Age & Gender Frequency

These figures approximate to Australia’s adult age distribution, as reported by the ABS in 2014 in Figure 4 below, though with a considerably higher skew towards younger women and older men.

Figure 4: Australia’s Age & Gender Frequency (ABS 2014)

State and Location

Survey distribution by state broadly follows Australia’s demographic distribution.

The split of participants between urban and regional/rural is as follows:

Figure 5: Location Frequency

The percentage of reported urban residents here is 64.3 - considerably less than World Bank figures of 89%.

Results by Critical Issue - Aggregated

Competencies

Our survey asked participants to respond to two questions about competencies:

  • Frequency of online activity
  • Perceived ease of conducting online activity
General Results
Frequency of online activity

Frequency of online activity measures frequency of 15 different activities, ranging from highly common activities such as sending email through to less common activities (in 2016), such as writing blogs.

Figure 6 below shows the relative frequencies of each activity. Using the Internet generally (for work, study, and for personal use), sending email and social networking are the most common activities. Streaming music, playing games with others, sharing media and writing blogs or diaries are comparatively uncommon activities.

Figure 6: Frequency of online activity

Perceived ease of conducting online activity

Respondents were asked to rate the ease or difficulty of 27 online activities. Overall respondents report a high level of competency across all activities with bookmarking a website and connecting to a wifi network scoring the highest. Understanding the language that others use online and creating a blog were reported as more difficult activities. Despite the high level of competence reported by respondents in each of the 27 activities there were a small percentage of respondents who reported each of these activities as difficult or very difficult. Analysing the results according to age ranges provides a more illustrative breakdown of the results.

Figure 7: Perceived ease of conducting online activity

Results by Age
Used the Internet for personal use (e.g. finding a recipe or fixing an issue with a computer)

Across all age groups, a large majority of respondents reported using the internet for personal use almost daily or more often. The 18-34 age group are the heaviest users, with 58% using the internet for personal use several times a day.

Figure 8: Used the Internet for personal use (e.g. finding a recipe or fixing an issue with a computer)

Watched video clips (e.g. on YouTube)

Differences by age groups are more visible depending on specific uses of the internet. Watching video clips for example is an activity where there is a clear demarcation between the under 35s, who are more likely to do this on a daily basis or more often, and those aged 35 or over, who are more likely to do this on a weekly basis or less often.

Figure 9: Watched video clips (e.g. on YouTube)

Sent/received email

In contrast, respondents over 18 overwhelmingly reported using email as a means of communication several times a day, compared to only a fifth of those aged 12 to 17.

Figure 10: Sent/received email

Create a blog

Although respondents in the older age groups were less likely than younger people to report specific digital tasks to be easy or very easy, it is worth noting that they did not necessarily report those to be especially difficult. Rather, much higher proportions of respondents in the older age groups answered “Don’t know” or “Not applicable” to those specific tasks such as creating a blog, pointing to a difference in levels of need and interest more so than actual competencies.

Figure 11: Create a blog

Understand the language that others use online

When asked about more ‘general’ or overarching skills such as understanding the language that others use online, the age correlation by which the perceived ease of conducting specific tasks decreases as the age of respondents increases becomes more apparent.

Figure 12: Understand the language that others use online

Block unwanted adverts or junk mail

There is, however, greater consistency across age groups for competencies such as blocking unwanted adverts or junk mail.

Figure 13: Block unwanted adverts or junk mail

Interests

General Results
General Interests

Frequency of online activity measures frequency of 11 different activities related to information seeking, ranging from highly common activities, such as looking for information about general interests on platforms such as Wikipedia, through to more specific activities (in 2016), such as national government services.

Figure 14 below shows the relative frequencies of each activity. Looking for information about a topic of general interest where answers were provided by Wikipedia, Quora or other informational sites, and searching for prices are the most common activities. Looking for information about concerts and events, and political or societal issues are comparatively uncommon activities.

Figure 14: General Interests

Interest in seeking difference

This question measures frequency of 7 different online activities whose main purpose is to determine to what extent online information seeking helps people to find others who share their interests and to learn about or understand social and cultural difference.

Figure 15 below shows the relative frequencies of each activity. Finding people of a similar age who share my interests is the most frequent and most commonly reported activity, followed by learning new things about people with mental illnesses or physical disabilities and learning new things about other ethnic groups. Learning things about participant’s own ethnic group and feeling more connected to spiritual or religious beliefs are less common. This suggests that for Australians, online information seeking is more directed towards questions of interest, gender and health, rather than ethnicity and religion.

Figure 15: Interest in seeking difference

Interest in fitness and health improvement

This question measures frequency of 10 different online activities whose main purpose is to determine to what extent online technologies assist people to manage their health and fitness.

Figure 16 below shows the relative frequencies of each activity. Looking up information or asking others about a training program is the most frequent and commonly reported activity, followed by looking up information or asking advice on a medical condition. The least common activities reported are participating in an online health or fitness community and filling out questionnaires about fitness. There are not large differences reported between any of the activities, and less than 40% of participants reported engaging in any of the activities on more than a monthly basis.

Figure 16: Interest in fitness and health improvement

We asked a series of subsidiary statements about use of digital capacities to improve health. More participants agreed than disagreed (32% to 17%) with the statement they made better decisions as a result of online advice. In terms of outcomes, responses were more evenly split: 25% agreed their health had improved, while 20% disagreed.

Figure 17: Health Impacts

Interest in keeping in touch

The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of their motivations for using the internet for maintaining their general interests, along with their connections with others. Respondents were asked to rate 14 statements which ranged between extremely important and not important at all. All the statements were rated with a degree of importance in over 50% of all responses. “Communicating with friends and family” was rated the highest, with over 90% of respondents rating this on the scale of importance. Opening up new worlds and fueling my imagination also scored highly. Less common in the scale was providing continuity of connection in a changing world. This suggests that the reasons that motivate people to use the internet are contingent upon their connections with others and their sense of self.

Figure 18: Interest in keeping in touch

Results by Age
Look for information about a topic of general interest, where answers were provided by Wikipedia, Quora or other informational sites

As previously mentioned, differences by age are more or less noticeable depending on the various uses of the internet, which directly relates to motivations, interests and the reasons why respondents go online. A commonly reported use such as going online to look for information about a topic of general interest (where answers are provided by informational sites like Wikipedia or Quora) is typically one where the relative frequency is consistent across all age groups.

Figure 19: Look for information about a topic of general interest, where answers were provided by Wikipedia, Quora or other informational sites

Look for information about national government services (e.g. benefits, taxes, a driving licence or passport)

Comparatively, much lower relative frequencies were reported for going online to look for information about a political or societal issue.

Figure 20: Look for information about national government services (e.g. benefits, taxes, a driving licence or passport)

Look up information about health or medical care

Nearly half (46%) of younger respondents (under 18) reported not looking up information about health or medical care in the last 12 months. The proportion of those who did so at least once in the last 12 months increase with age, although the relative frequencies remain low.

Figure 21: Look up information about health or medical care

Resilience

Our survey asked participants to respond to three questions about potential risks and harms of online activity, and how they prepare themselves for dealing with them.

  • Experience of potential risks and harms of online activity in the last 12 months
  • Level of agreement with statements about potential risks and harms
  • Level of agreement with statements about engaging with others online
General Results
Frequency of harmful events

Frequency of harmful events measures frequency of 11 risks of online activity. These include getting a virus on one’s device or seeing upsetting content online, or actions taken as a protection measure against those risks, such as reporting an issue online, deleting data or blocking further contacts from an individual.

Figure 22 below shows the relative frequencies of experiencing a risk, or taking a specific action in response to a risk, in the last 12 months.

On average, more than half of respondents (51%) reported having never experienced these risks or potentially harmful events. The event that was most commonly experienced was ‘Seeing or experiencing something on the internet that had bothered them in some way’ with 55% of respondents experiencing this at least once in the last 12 months, and 14% reporting experiencing this on a weekly basis or more often.

Half of respondents reported taking protective measures, such as blocking further contacts from an individual or deleting data in response to security and privacy concerns, at least once in the last 12 months.

Although respondents reported experiencing potentially harmful events online, the frequency of such events remains generally low. The most frequently reported action in response to online risks is to use extra security measures to protect privacy.

Figure 22: Frequency of harmful events

Responses to statements about online harms

Figure 23 below shows the level of agreement with a number of statements relating to online harms.

Despite reporting having experienced some potentially harmful events in the last 12 months, the level of agreement with statements about online harms of a more general nature show an overall positive attitude towards those risks. The majority of respondents agree or strongly agree that the opportunities of online activities outweigh its risks and that some level of online risk is inevitable but also provides an important learning opportunity.

Online security and safety remains a pressing concern for just over a third of respondents but there appears to be both an increased level of acceptance and the development of coping mechanisms to better manage the risks.

Figure 23: Responses to statements about online harms

Willingness to engage with others

Thinking about how they feel when they engage with others online, respondents were asked to what extent they agree with several statements relating to their willingness to engage with others.

For each of these statements, a large proportion of respondents neither agree nor disagree. People tend to disagree that it is easier to be oneself online than face to face or that they talk about private things online that they do not share face to face. Similar proportions agree or disagree that going online makes them feel better when they are going through a difficult time.

Figure 24: Willingness to engage with others

Results by Age
I have seen or experienced something on the Internet that has bothered me in some way.

Respondents under the age of 35 were more likely to report higher frequency of seeing something on the internet that had bothered them in some way.

Figure 25: I have seen or experienced something on the Internet that has bothered me in some way.

I have deleted messages, profiles or other data in response to security and privacy concerns.

There are no differences by age in the reported frequency of deleting data in response to privacy concerns.

Figure 26: I have deleted messages, profiles or other data in response to security and privacy concerns.

Generally, online security and safety is a pressing concern for me.

Over a third (35%) of respondents agree or strongly agree that online security and safety is generally a pressing concern. Interestingly, there were no noticeable differences by age groups.

Figure 27: Generally, online security and safety is a pressing concern for me.

Generally, the opportunities of online activity outweighs its risks.

Having said that, respondents also overwhelmingly agree that the opportunities of online activity outweigh its risks, with half agreeing or strongly agreeing with that statement. Again, there are no noticeable differences by age groups.

Figure 28: Generally, the opportunities of online activity outweighs its risks.

Social Connectedness

Our survey asked participants to respond to questions about social connectedness and the role technology plays in their interactions with other people. Key topics include:

  • Frequency of online activity to maintain connections
  • Importance of online life to maintaining relationships
  • Level of agreement with statements about broader issues concerning technology
General Results
Maintaining connections

This question measures frequency of 8 different online activities whose main purpose, or direct consequence, is to interact with others and/or to maintain connections.

Figure 29 below shows the relative frequencies of each activity. Reading updates from friends or family via email or social media is the most frequent and most commonly reported activity, followed by making comments on those updates. Making new friends, meeting people or looking at websites that help meet new people are less common. This suggests that online activity is primarily used to strengthen connection with offline networks rather than as a distinct circle of connections.

Figure 29: Maintaining connections

Importance of online life in maintaining relationships

When asked how important online life is in maintaining relationships with various groups within a broader social network, friends and family were the two groups with the highest level of importance. Online is also considered important in maintaining relationships with other networks of interest and work or school peers, but comparatively not as important to the maintenance of relationships with neighbours.

Figure 30: Importance of online life in maintaining relationships

Attitudes towards Technology

The survey asked respondents to what extent they agree or disagree with a number of statements with regards to attitudes towards broader issues concerning technology.

Similar to our findings on the more general statements about online risks and harms, the attitudes of respondents towards technology is especially positive with over 60% reporting being optimistic about the future of technology. Nearly three quarters (74%) agree or strongly agree that technology is part of everyday life. Nearly half (49%) believe that technology can not only make participants more effective members of their community or nation, but can also foster social inclusion.

The positive attitude is nevertheless counterbalanced with concerns about the use of online information by governments or companies, the impact on the environment or the growing divide between technology experts and the rest of society.

Figure 31: Attitudes towards Technology

Results by Age
Family

Across all age groups, a large proportion of respondents reported that their online life was extremely important in maintaining relationships with family members.

Figure 32: Family

Shared pictures of yourself with your family or friends (e.g. through a social networking site, photo sharing site)

The ways in which people maintain connections with others online, however, differ depending on the people’s age. The likelihood of sharing pictures of oneself with family or friends decreases with age, with half of 12-17 year olds doing so weekly or more often compared to less than a fifth of those aged 65 or over.

Figure 33: Shared pictures of yourself with your family or friends (e.g. through a social networking site, photo sharing site)

I am concerned about how companies, governments and others might use my online information.

Overall, respondents largely agreed to being concerned about how companies, governments or others might use their online information, and results are consistent across all age groups.

Figure 34: I am concerned about how companies, governments and others might use my online information.

Overall results

Aggregates by Critical Issue

To gain an overall picture of our results, we generated a series of stacked graphs in Figure 35: Aggregated Results by Critical Issue. These aggregate responses to each critical issue (Competencies, Interests, Resilience and Competencies), and the combined total.

These results are indicative only, and have several evident limitations we discuss further below. The procedure to generate scores for each of the issues is as follows:

  1. Interpret each question as having either a positive or negative influence of the score of the critical issue. For example, “Frequency of harmful events” has a negative influence on the issue of Resilience (and indeed, on overall “Digital Capacities”).
  2. Determine the direction of the scale coding. For example, in all of our “Agreement” questions, “Strongly Agree” was coded 1.
  3. For each question, calculate a question score based on both its interpretation and direction, by adding responses to individual items.
  4. For each respondent, add each of their question scores to produce a respondent critical issue score. This value is converted to a percentile, where ‘100%’ would indicate maximum responses to each item for each question in that critical issue.
  5. A combined score is taken by averaging the four critical issue scores.

Figure 35 then displays the relative frequencies of these scores, similar to the preceding individual question graphs. Because values are continuous (anywhere on a scale between 0 and 100 per cent), the graphs show a spectrum from blue (indicating a low score) to bright yellow (indicating a high score).

The Resilience score is calculated in the same way as the other issue scores, with the exception that only the first two items under Question 428, “Willingness to engage with others”, are included in the scoring procedure. We have intepreted these items (“When I am going through a difficult time, I go online less often”; “When I am going through a difficult time, going online makes me feel better”) as having some influence (the first negative, the second positive) on Resilience.

Limitations

The above procedure has several limitations.

First, it is questionable whether complex concepts such as digital resilience and social connectedness, in particular, are reducible to a quantitative value, regardless of the procedure used to derive it. Further, for reasons of space, our characterisation of Digital Capacities includes a total of nine critical issues, only four of which are included in the survey. We recommend comparing these scores with our qualitative findings, which illustrate the more nuanced and sometimes contradictory character of these qualities in Australian families.

Second, the procedure treats, at the moment, each of the scales as numerically regular. For example, on the Agreement scale it assumes Strongly agree warrants 1 more score point than Agree, which in turn warrants 1 more point than Neither Agree nor Disagree. In other words, ordinal scales are treated as ratio variables, with regular intervals.

Third, the procedure assumes all questions and individual items have equal influence on the critical issue they have been aligned to.

[REVIEW NOTE: The latter two of these issues can be addressed partially by a more sophisticated scaling and weighting approach. We are considering holding a workshop for this purpose in preparation of the complete draft meeting in May 2016.]

Observations

Bearing in mind the method of deriving these aggregate scores, we make only minimal observations at this stage. Figure 35 shows that results for Compentencies and Connectedness are evenly distributed, with respondents’ scores spread across the 100-point scale. These are also similar to the spread of Combined scores. Resilience scores tend high, with most respondents reporting little exposure to harms, and familiarity with methods for responding to those harms.

On the other hand, Interest scores tend low. This may be explained by our limiting interests to areas of social difference, fitness, health and family, which will not effectively poll the range or extent of participants’ interests.

Figure 35: Aggregated Results by Critical Issue

Digital Capacities of Families

Setting the Agenda

References

Helsper, Ellen. 2012. “A Corresponding Fields Model for the Links Between Social and Digital Exclusion.” Communication Theory 22 (4). Wiley Online Library: 403–26.

Humphry, Justine. 2014. “The Importance of Circumstance: Digital Access and Affordability for People Experiencing Homelessness.” Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy 2 (3). Telecommunications Association: 55.

James, Paul. 2014. Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. Routledge.

Livingstone, Sonia, Leslie Haddon, Anke Görzig, and Kjartan Ólafsson. 2010. “Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of European Children: Key Findings from the EU Kids Online Survey of 9-16 Year Olds and Their Parents in 25 Countries.” EU Kids Online.

Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre. 2013. “CRC Standard Measures.”